Im going to give a certain poster and his agenda a wide berth, he's clearly looking to goad people into bans and any right minded person can see from their posts what they're trying to do.:rolleyes:
I'm also.hoping to see Indias full squad here this summer especially as their batting line up is the best in world cricket. I've just bought tickets for day 2 of the Oval test at £60 which I think is reasonable. Lords for some reason wanted £90-£100.:mad:
Im going to give a certain poster and his agenda a wide berth, he's clearly looking to goad people into bans and any right minded person can see from their posts what they're trying to do.:rolleyes:
Actually, it's the Welsh who've been discrimated against in English cricket
Don Shepherd never played a match! Hugh Morris wasn't picked for Australia 90/91! Maynard was dropped in 88 after a single match. Steve James didn't get a debut till 98.
Colin Metson was never picked (well, he wasn't Welsh but he played for Glamorgan)!
In all cases not good enough........
But being Welsh would have been a good enough reason:cool:
But being Welsh would have been a good enough reason:cool:
LOL
Maybe in the cases of Morris (who jumped into a bouncer in 91 rather than ducking ) and James, but I don't know about Maynard. Picked too young? A rash shot at the Oval in 93, dropped hastily in early 94?
Maybe in the cases of Morris (who jumped into a bouncer in 91 rather than ducking ) and James, but I don't know about Maynard. Picked too young? A rash shot at the Oval in 93, dropped hastily in early 94?
Given the current system MAynard would have at least been given a decent run in the team weather he would have been good enough is anyones guess
Well you are entitled to your self congratulatory opinions but....
every time an all white England team runs on to the pitch (how many continuous series it has been now) and there remain a few non white faces slouching in the dressing room or back home in England, then my argument, however unsavoury it may seem to your mind, garners strength and credibility.
It's just occurred to me that in the 80s, the Aussies weren't blackwashed by the West Indies - unlike England of course (twice :eek: ).
And unlike England, they even managed to win the odd test match against them.
So maybe they weren't all that bad in 86/87!
Just looked in on an Aussie based cricket board I know.
Too many prepubescent airheads and general idiots (luckily we only have one) but some older, wiser heads.
They were reflecting on that period and some of the names that came up were:
Carl Rackemann, John Dyson, Tom Hogan, Greg Ritchie, Murray Bennett, Ross McCurdy, Steve Smith (the 1st), Wayne Phillips, Dave Gilbert and Andrew Hilditch.
Pretty scary bunch that........
And Maynard - when someone walks out to bat in a Test and you can see (as I did, I was there) from 50 yards away that he is shaking you can guess he's not going to succeed. Had the talent but lacked cojones.
His son, I understand, certainly has the talent but is a bit of a See You Next Tuesday.
Just looked in on an Aussie based cricket board I know.
Too many prepubescent airheads and general idiots (luckly we only have one) but some older, wiser heads.
They were reflecting on that period and some of the names that came up were:
Carl Rackemann, Tom Hogan, Greg Ritchie, Murray Bennett, Ross McCurdy, Steve Smith (the 1st), Wayne Phillips, Dave Gilbert and Andrew Hilditch.
Pretty scary bunch that........
And Maynard - when someone walks out to bat in a Test and you can see (as I did, I was there) from 50 yards away that he is shaking you can guess he's not going to succeed. Had the talent but lacked cojones.
His son, I understand, certainly has the talent but is a bit of a See You Next Tuesday.
Just looked in on an Aussie based cricket board I know.
Too many prepubescent airheads and general idiots (luckily we only have one) but some older, wiser heads.
They were reflecting on that period and some of the names that came up were:
Carl Rackemann, John Dyson, Tom Hogan, Greg Ritchie, Murray Bennett, Ross McCurdy, Steve Smith (the 1st), Wayne Phillips, Dave Gilbert and Andrew Hilditch.
Pretty scary bunch that........
And Maynard - when someone walks out to bat in a Test and you can see (as I did, I was there) from 50 yards away that he is shaking you can guess he's not going to succeed. Had the talent but lacked cojones.
His son, I understand, certainly has the talent but is a bit of a See You Next Tuesday.
But most if not all of those Aussies didn't play in the Ashes 86/87 (or 85?). I think most of them had gone off to South Africa.
Well you are entitled to your self congratulatory opinions but....
every time an all white England team runs on to the pitch (how many continuous series it has been now) and there remain a few non white faces slouching in the dressing room or back home in England, then my argument, however unsavoury it may seem to your mind, garners strength and credibility.
No, it doesn't .
Most reasonable judges would consider that the current England team is pretty much the best that can be put on the park. OK, some will always disagree with particular individuals. And that is certainly the case with any non white player you choose to mention. There may be one or two that some might have in the team, but there is none whose form demands a place or in my view deserves a place just now. Nmae any non white player and I think most folk woulld say they were not currently deserving a place on comparative talent and / or temperament, i.e. based on cricket issues alone.
I think you really know that if a non white player clearly justified a place he'd be in the team but for whatever your reasons you are continuning with this ridiculous racist allegation agenda.
I asked and you answered re a "quota" and you compare it to the one in South Africa, which I am sure you know is a ridiculous comparison with the opportunities non whites missed in SA for so long, and a legacy of it being seen as a white sport there. So there are even now SA players that didn't progress as much as they might a younger age through limited opportunity and the quota system ( while controversial with some ) does seem to have helped fully develop a number of players. The comparison is not there with England and the quota system unnecessary..
So how many in the quota, 1, 2 , 3 ? I would feel insulted if I had the feeling that I was just selected for a team as a token member of some subsection rather than for my talent, when I had every opportunity to have made the team on talent alone.
Doubt there is much more I can say on this subject though no doubt you will prattle on to a dimishing audience until the only one taking much notice is yourself.
Most reasonable judges would consider that the current England team is pretty much the best that can be put on the park. OK, some will always disagree with particular individuals. And that is certainly the case with any non white player you choose to mention. There may be one or two that some might have in the team, but there is none whose form demands a place or in my view deserves a place just now. Nmae any non white player and I think most folk woulld say they were not currently deserving a place on comparative talent and / or temperament, i.e. based on cricket issues alone.
I think you really know that if a non white player clearly justified a place he'd be in the team but for whatever your reasons you are continuning with this ridiculous racist allegation agenda.
I asked and you answered re a "quota" and you compare it to the one in South Africa, which I am sure you know is a ridiculous comparison with the opportunities non whites missed in SA for so long, and a legacy of it being seen as a white sport there. So there are even now SA players that didn't progress as much as they might a younger age through limited opportunity and the quota system ( while controversial with some ) does seem to have helped fully develop a number of players. The comparison is not there with England and the quota system unnecessary..
So how many in the quota, 1, 2 , 3 ? I would feel insulted if I had the feeling that I was just selected for a team as a token member of some subsection rather than for my talent, when I had every opportunity to have made the team on talent alone.
Doubt there is much more I can say on this subject though no doubt you will prattle on to a dimishing audience until the only one taking much notice is yourself.
The closest one is Panesar. But I suspect he'd agree that, at the moment, Swann is the 'one spinner' pick.
As for the 2nd 'bold' pretty sure that's already happening. Hopefully he'll get fed up of being ignored and go away.
Unfortunately for Khawaja, the A game came at a time when the selection policy appeared to be in flux, even if the selectors' hands had been forced by marketing men somewhat. He did have that big 214 earlier in the season and has yet to score another 100 since but has notched up some important scores. His overall first-class average is very healthy and on that basis he deserves a shot. I feel sorry for the likes of David Hussey - does he need to score a quintuple century to get a call up? Shaun Marsh might be a good pick - I like him in odis as he looks to bat properly but still scores at a decent clip.
Finally, quick point on two players copping a lot of flak lately. Steve Smith and Phil Hughes should be persisted with and not discarded - these guys are very talented and have that x-factor for me. Smith is a promising batsman who has played some handy innings in his short career and his bowling will get better with age and experience. He is also a fine fielder and an upbeat character in a team, which needs lifting. Hughes is a young opener who scored 2 hundreds in a match in South Africa - that is no mean feat. He might not look the most sound player in terms of technique but if he's told he will be given a run in the side, I think he will make a lot of runs at test level.
Unfortunately for Khawaja, the A game came at a time when the selection policy appeared to be in flux, even if the selectors' hands had been forced by marketing men somewhat. He did have that big 214 earlier in the season and has yet to score another 100 since but has notched up some important scores. His overall first-class average is very healthy and on that basis he deserves a shot. I feel sorry for the likes of David Hussey - does he need to score a quintuple century to get a call up? Shaun Marsh might be a good pick - I like him in odis as he looks to bat properly but still scores at a decent clip.
Finally, quick point on two players copping a lot of flak lately. Steve Smith and Phil Hughes should be persisted with and not discarded - these guys are very talented and have that x-factor for me. Smith is a promising batsman who has played some handy innings in his short career and his bowling will get better with age and experience. He is also a fine fielder and an upbeat character in a team, which needs lifting. Hughes is a young opener who scored 2 hundreds in a match in South Africa - that is no mean feat. He might not look the most sound player in terms of technique but if he's told he will be given a run in the side, I think he will make a lot of runs at test level.
The main issue with Hughes is that his technical flaws are big and were found out very quickly - this happens at Test level and they don't let go.
SA bowled short - correctly - but outside the off stump - wrongly, thinking he was a gully catch waiting to happen.
England adjusted this so the ball was coming in to his rib/s armpit and he was gone. If he wants a Test career he must sort that out. His footwork, on the front dog especially, is all over the place at the moment. Watching the last Test, even when he made runs, his feet had different 'trigger' movements pretty well every ball.
Smith - I don't yet see any reason for such major hype. His batting, I understand, is very much 'shoot from the hip' - like a less talented Afridi. He must tighten up to have a chance. I'm afraid, at the moment, his leggies are net bowler level.
Hey as an Englishman, I hope they persist with Smith and Hughes.:p
I guess I can understand the Hughes thing, but gawd is he horrible to watch, simply because of the class of his previous innings. Yet I really don't get the Smith love, can't buy a wicket, and he doesn't look remotely a Test batsmen, He's just exposed at this level and it isn't doing him any good. Needs to play more State games, and as Warney said a stint in County cricket would be great, before he's reintroduced to Tests. Like Rashid, a talent, but nowhere near the complete article, needs First-class games.
The closest one is Panesar. But I suspect he'd agree that, at the moment, Swann is the 'one spinner' pick.
As for the 2nd 'bold' pretty sure that's already happening. Hopefully he'll get fed up of being ignored and go away.
As long as the Boparas, Owais Shah's,Shahzad and Adil Rashid's exist, as long as comparisons can be made in terms of how many extra chances the Cooks, Bells, Broads and Swanns of this team get and a long as skin pigmentation appears to be the only central theme, i will prattle on while you can either ignore me or boast about your umpiring skills.
Could we please get to discussing whether Khawaja is the right man to bat 3 at the SCG on his home ground?
I know he's replacing Ponting who normally bats at 3 but why is a debutant batting so high in the order? Don't the Aussies normally 'blood' a young player lower down the order?
When Ponting played in the 87 Ashes, he was at number 6.
The only example of a youngster playing at 3 on debut is I think Langer against West Indies in 92/93
As long as the Boparas, Owais Shah's,Shahzad and Adil Rashid's exist, as long as comparisons can be made in terms of how many extra chances the Cooks, Bells, Broads and Swanns of this team get and a long as skin pigmentation appears to be the only central theme,.
As long as the Boparas, Owais Shah's,Shahzad and Adil Rashid's exist, as long as comparisons can be made in terms of how many extra chances the Cooks, Bells, Broads and Swanns of this team get and a long as skin pigmentation appears to be the only central theme, i will prattle on while you can either ignore me or boast about your umpiring skills.
No, it's not.:yawn:
Bopara's already had chances at the top level and was found wanting twice (Sri Lanka 07/08 & Ashes '09) - although in fairness he was batting too high in the order in the Ashes and Sri Lanka's a tough place to tour.
Panesar's played almost 40 test matches but was replaced by the best English spinner since Derek Underwood.
Swann had one chance in 2000, got up peoples noses and didn't get a second chance for seven years.
Thank goodness Cook and Bell, especially Cook, were given second chances.
I would've picked Shahzad for Adelaide and Melbourne.
Shah will probably never play for England again. He's even been released by his county. He had his chance on the flat pitches in the West Indies during '09 and only scored one fifty (even Bopara scored runs there ).
The main issue with Hughes is that his technical flaws are big and were found out very quickly - this happens at Test level and they don't let go.
SA bowled short - correctly - but outside the off stump - wrongly, thinking he was a gully catch waiting to happen.
England adjusted this so the ball was coming in to his rib/s armpit and he was gone. If he wants a Test career he must sort that out. His footwork, on the front dog especially, is all over the place at the moment. Watching the last Test, even when he made runs, his feet had different 'trigger' movements pretty well every ball.
Smith - I don't yet see any reason for such major hype. His batting, I understand, is very much 'shoot from the hip' - like a less talented Afridi. He must tighten up to have a chance. I'm afraid, at the moment, his leggies are net bowler level.
Hughes will always struggle with his technique and now England have exposed him other countries will follow suit. He's had 18 months to fix it since the last ashes series and either can't or won't. He won't be a test opener long term imho.
Re Smith all I see is an ODI all rounder, he bats a bit, he bowls a bit. He's not even as good as Hauritz but I feel he will be an important paert of the ODI side in years to come. I also can't work out why David Hussey can't get a game either??
Yeah they do usually put young/new players down the order but in this case they have no real other option - indeed they really need to shift Clarke back down to 5. Thing is, when the Australians blooded new guys they did so from a position of strength - now they are doing it from one of weakness and they can't really afford to ease Khawaja in. The selectors could have brought in a new batsman or two a year ago and chose not to. We can see the wisdom of such a policy now.
As for Hughes, I am not ignoring his technical flaws and he needs to work on them but for a young opener, he has still done quite well and I still think 100s in both innings is a stunning achievement. They said Ganguly and Sehwag were dominant off-side players but they overcame this and I would definitely keep Hughes in the team. Sticking with players isn't sending out a signal they're the finished product but I think if Hughes was told he was the opener for the next 10 tests, you'd see him work on those aspects of his game, which are weak and score a lot of runs.
Question for the guys here - who is the worst test spinner you've seen? Been thinking about this since Doherty was picked. For me, Nilesh Kulkarni was pretty hopeless as was Sairaj Buffet-ball Bahutule!
Hughes will always struggle with his technique and now England have exposed him other countries will follow suit. He's had 18 months to fix it since the last ashes series and either can't or won't. He won't be a test opener long term imho.
Re Smith all I see is an ODI all rounder, he bats a bit, he bowls a bit. He's not even as good as Hauritz but I feel he will be an important paert of the ODI side in years to come. I also can't work out why David Hussey can't get a game either??
Smith's their Ronnie Irani Nudge and nurdle 30 odd runs and take the odd wicket.
Comments
I've been saying that for a while.......
But his arguments are so easy to destroy!
In all cases not good enough........
But being Welsh would have been a good enough reason:cool:
LOL
Maybe in the cases of Morris (who jumped into a bouncer in 91 rather than ducking
Given the current system MAynard would have at least been given a decent run in the team weather he would have been good enough is anyones guess
Well you are entitled to your self congratulatory opinions but....
every time an all white England team runs on to the pitch (how many continuous series it has been now) and there remain a few non white faces slouching in the dressing room or back home in England, then my argument, however unsavoury it may seem to your mind, garners strength and credibility.
Just looked in on an Aussie based cricket board I know.
Too many prepubescent airheads and general idiots (luckily we only have one) but some older, wiser heads.
They were reflecting on that period and some of the names that came up were:
Carl Rackemann, John Dyson, Tom Hogan, Greg Ritchie, Murray Bennett, Ross McCurdy, Steve Smith (the 1st), Wayne Phillips, Dave Gilbert and Andrew Hilditch.
Pretty scary bunch that........
And Maynard - when someone walks out to bat in a Test and you can see (as I did, I was there) from 50 yards away that he is shaking you can guess he's not going to succeed. Had the talent but lacked cojones.
His son, I understand, certainly has the talent but is a bit of a See You Next Tuesday.
self effacing as usual i see.
But most if not all of those Aussies didn't play in the Ashes 86/87 (or 85?). I think most of them had gone off to South Africa.
I left out the 86/87 side (apart from Ritchie).
No, it doesn't .
Most reasonable judges would consider that the current England team is pretty much the best that can be put on the park. OK, some will always disagree with particular individuals. And that is certainly the case with any non white player you choose to mention. There may be one or two that some might have in the team, but there is none whose form demands a place or in my view deserves a place just now. Nmae any non white player and I think most folk woulld say they were not currently deserving a place on comparative talent and / or temperament, i.e. based on cricket issues alone.
I think you really know that if a non white player clearly justified a place he'd be in the team but for whatever your reasons you are continuning with this ridiculous racist allegation agenda.
I asked and you answered re a "quota" and you compare it to the one in South Africa, which I am sure you know is a ridiculous comparison with the opportunities non whites missed in SA for so long, and a legacy of it being seen as a white sport there. So there are even now SA players that didn't progress as much as they might a younger age through limited opportunity and the quota system ( while controversial with some ) does seem to have helped fully develop a number of players. The comparison is not there with England and the quota system unnecessary..
So how many in the quota, 1, 2 , 3 ? I would feel insulted if I had the feeling that I was just selected for a team as a token member of some subsection rather than for my talent, when I had every opportunity to have made the team on talent alone.
Doubt there is much more I can say on this subject though no doubt you will prattle on to a dimishing audience until the only one taking much notice is yourself.
The closest one is Panesar. But I suspect he'd agree that, at the moment, Swann is the 'one spinner' pick.
As for the 2nd 'bold' pretty sure that's already happening. Hopefully he'll get fed up of being ignored and go away.
Well he is in good form - though that has dipped recently apparently.
Would appear to be 'promising' rather than 'sure fire'.
The only time I've seen him was in the 'A' game in Tassie and he didn't look outstanding there but hey.
Given the Ponting withdrawal he is, by all accounts, the obvious pick. Being at his home ground is a bonus.
Finally, quick point on two players copping a lot of flak lately. Steve Smith and Phil Hughes should be persisted with and not discarded - these guys are very talented and have that x-factor for me. Smith is a promising batsman who has played some handy innings in his short career and his bowling will get better with age and experience. He is also a fine fielder and an upbeat character in a team, which needs lifting. Hughes is a young opener who scored 2 hundreds in a match in South Africa - that is no mean feat. He might not look the most sound player in terms of technique but if he's told he will be given a run in the side, I think he will make a lot of runs at test level.
The main issue with Hughes is that his technical flaws are big and were found out very quickly - this happens at Test level and they don't let go.
SA bowled short - correctly - but outside the off stump - wrongly, thinking he was a gully catch waiting to happen.
England adjusted this so the ball was coming in to his rib/s armpit and he was gone. If he wants a Test career he must sort that out. His footwork, on the front dog especially, is all over the place at the moment. Watching the last Test, even when he made runs, his feet had different 'trigger' movements pretty well every ball.
Smith - I don't yet see any reason for such major hype. His batting, I understand, is very much 'shoot from the hip' - like a less talented Afridi. He must tighten up to have a chance. I'm afraid, at the moment, his leggies are net bowler level.
I guess I can understand the Hughes thing, but gawd is he horrible to watch, simply because of the class of his previous innings. Yet I really don't get the Smith love, can't buy a wicket, and he doesn't look remotely a Test batsmen, He's just exposed at this level and it isn't doing him any good. Needs to play more State games, and as Warney said a stint in County cricket would be great, before he's reintroduced to Tests. Like Rashid, a talent, but nowhere near the complete article, needs First-class games.
As long as the Boparas, Owais Shah's,Shahzad and Adil Rashid's exist, as long as comparisons can be made in terms of how many extra chances the Cooks, Bells, Broads and Swanns of this team get and a long as skin pigmentation appears to be the only central theme, i will prattle on while you can either ignore me or boast about your umpiring skills.
I know he's replacing Ponting who normally bats at 3 but why is a debutant batting so high in the order? Don't the Aussies normally 'blood' a young player lower down the order?
When Ponting played in the 87 Ashes, he was at number 6.
The only example of a youngster playing at 3 on debut is I think Langer against West Indies in 92/93
Only in your strange little world.........
No, it's not.:yawn:
Bopara's already had chances at the top level and was found wanting twice (Sri Lanka 07/08 & Ashes '09) - although in fairness he was batting too high in the order in the Ashes and Sri Lanka's a tough place to tour.
Panesar's played almost 40 test matches but was replaced by the best English spinner since Derek Underwood.
Swann had one chance in 2000, got up peoples noses and didn't get a second chance for seven years.
Thank goodness Cook and Bell, especially Cook, were given second chances.
I would've picked Shahzad for Adelaide and Melbourne.
Shah will probably never play for England again. He's even been released by his county. He had his chance on the flat pitches in the West Indies during '09 and only scored one fifty (even Bopara scored runs there
Rashid's time will probably come soon.
Hughes will always struggle with his technique and now England have exposed him other countries will follow suit. He's had 18 months to fix it since the last ashes series and either can't or won't. He won't be a test opener long term imho.
Re Smith all I see is an ODI all rounder, he bats a bit, he bowls a bit. He's not even as good as Hauritz but I feel he will be an important paert of the ODI side in years to come. I also can't work out why David Hussey can't get a game either??
As for Hughes, I am not ignoring his technical flaws and he needs to work on them but for a young opener, he has still done quite well and I still think 100s in both innings is a stunning achievement. They said Ganguly and Sehwag were dominant off-side players but they overcame this and I would definitely keep Hughes in the team. Sticking with players isn't sending out a signal they're the finished product but I think if Hughes was told he was the opener for the next 10 tests, you'd see him work on those aspects of his game, which are weak and score a lot of runs.
Question for the guys here - who is the worst test spinner you've seen? Been thinking about this since Doherty was picked. For me, Nilesh Kulkarni was pretty hopeless as was Sairaj Buffet-ball Bahutule!
Smith's their Ronnie Irani